|
distance to a distant galaxy and its speed of recession from us. This relationship is known as Ho, the Hubble constant. Mathematically, the Hubble constant is: Ho = V/d, where V is the velocity of the body away from us, and d is its distance from us. The Hubble constant has the interesting dimensions of kilometers per Megaparsec per second. A megaparsec is about 3.26 million light years, and a light year is the distance light travels in a year at the speed of 186,000 miles per second, or about 19 trillion miles. Hubble determined a value for Ho of between 500 and 550 km/Mps/sec.2 This means that for every megaparsec a galaxy is further from us, it's speed away from us increases by about 525 km/sec.
The authors of The Urantia Book inform us that, "Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance." (134) When converted to the same terms as the Hubble constant, the value given in The Urantia Book is 525 km/sec/Mpc. Thus, the authors cite Hubble's value, but reject this speed of recession. They go on to state, "But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions."
It turns out that the book's authors were correct about the value of Hubble's constant being excessive, but not for the reasons they stated. It seems to me that the authors are not denying that the universe is expanding, rather they are saying that the universe is not expanding at the rate Hubble calculated.
Because of Walter Baade's previously mentioned discovery, the value of the Hubble constant was lowered, and this meant that the universe was expanding at a more leisurely pace than Hubble had calculated. Today, the value of Ho stands at about 75 km/Kps/sec. This means that the universe is expanding at a rate only one seventh of that proposed by Hubble. The authors left the question of universe expansion open for an obvious reason. In Paper 11 they discuss a phenomenon known as space respiration and inform us that all of space is in an expansion phase at this time.
Unfortunately, there is no information in The Urantia Book to tell us that rate of expansion, so we have no way of comparing it with the expansion rate proposed by our astronomers and cosmologists. However, astronomers have recently discovered a feature of this expansion that may relate to space respiration.
Astronomers recently determined that the rate of universe expansion is not constant; according to them, it is accelerating. They had no explanation for this phenomenon; it was wholly unexpected. However, astronomers have since managed to cobble together an explanation to maintain the illusion that they really understand the origin and evolution of the universe.
In a previous article in Innerface International3, I theorized that space respiration could not be constant because it periodically reverses direction. The authors of the book tell us that the Master Universe is at the midpoint of the present expansion cycle. (124) When the previous contraction cycle ended, the universe had coasted to a dead stop. In order to begin expanding, it had to accelerate from a dead stop to its present rate of expansion. I theorized in my article that astronomers should be able to see that acceleration; perhaps they now have. But it could just as well be a coincidence. As we have seen in the pseudo-science of so-called scientific creationism, it is easy to ignore evidence that doesn't support our beliefs and over-emphasize evidence that supports our cherished beliefs.
When we first encounter the scientific and cosmological concepts in The Urantia Book, many of us are tempted to accept all of the ideas as revelatory, but the incorrect ideas we find may eventually introduce an element of doubt about this science and cosmology. Our initial reaction may be to look for new interpretations that will make the incorrect ideas appear correct, but we need to ask ourselves if this is intellectually honest. On the other hand, to reject the science content out of hand because it has some errors is intellectually irresponsible. We need to acknowledge that some of the scientific concepts introduced in the book appear to be prophetic. If we decide that the book contains no revelatory material, how do we explain this prophetic content? Or do we need to?
Doubt and Faith
I believe that the science and cosmology content of The Urantia Book need to be examined for several reasons. First, people to whom we introduce the book may note problems in the science of the book; this may lead them to question the validity of the entire book. We need to have reasonable answers for sincere questions. Second, the ideas presented about the cosmology of the universe in the book may move us to devote some thought to the universe and our place in it. Even if we ultimately reject part or all of the cosmology of The Urantia Book, at least we've given the subject some serious thought. But an even more significant reason to study the science and cosmology is to find an answer to this question: Why would the authors co-mingle correct and incorrect scientific concepts in the book?
The authors tell us that portions of the book were gleaned from the works of human authors. Matthew Block, who researches human sources for material in The Urantia Book, has identified portions of various books utilized in the sections on science and cosmology. If these source materials were selected by our unseen friends, we would naturally wonder why
|
|
